How should the most evil of law breakers be punished: The death penalty vs life imprisonment in Uganda, 1993 – 2009

View/Open

Date

Author

Metadata

Abstract

Article 22(1) of 1995 Constitution of Uganda protects the right to life and
provides that it can only be taken away in the ‘execution of a sentence passed
in a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a criminal
offence under the laws of Uganda and the conviction and sentence have been
confirmed by the highest appellate court.’ The death penalty is imposed for
some crimes such as murder, treason and terrorism. During the constitution
making process between 1989 and 1994 and when the constitution was being
amended in 2005, there were arguments that the death penalty should be
abolished and replaced with life imprisonment which means imprisonment
until death. These attempts were unsuccessful. The constitutionality of the
death penalty was unsuccessfully challenged in both the Constitutional Court
and the Supreme Court. However, both courts appear to hold the view that
if the death penalty is to be abolished, it should be substituted with life
imprisonment. This article highlights the attempts and the arguments that
have been made to abolish the death penalty in Uganda. The author argues,
inter alia, that should the death penalty be abolished and substituted with life
imprisonment, offenders sentenced to life imprisonment should not be
detained until death as life imprisonment without the possibility of release has
been found to be cruel and inhuman in some African countries such as South
Africa and Namibia. Because the death penalty is no longer mandatory in
Uganda and it is likely to be replaced by life imprisonment, the author
discusses the objectives of punishment that courts in Uganda have always
emphasized in sentencing offenders to life imprisonment.